Ethical issues in the development of new agents

Investigational New Drugs

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 145-153

  Daugherty, Christopher K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Informed consent; Phase I; Phase II; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADVANCED CANCER; ALTRUISM; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG TOXICITY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; DRUG EVALUATION; ETHICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY;

EID: 0032786016     PISSN: 01676997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1006371200296     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Engelhardt HT: The foundations of bioethics. 2nd edition; 330-335. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
2. The final report of the president's advisory committee. 2nd edition; 330-335. Oxford The human radiation experiments. Oxford University Press; New York, 1996 (ACHRE).
3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP: A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press; New York, 1982.
4. Applebaum PS, Lindz CN, Meisel A: Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. Oxford University Press; New York, 1987
5. Levine RJ: Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd edition. Vurland and Schwarzenburg; Baltimore, 1986
6. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont Report; ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Publication number (05) 78-0012. USGPO, Washington, DC, 1978
7. Freedman B, Fuks A, Weijer C: Demarcating Research in Treatment: a systematic approach for the analysis of the ethics of clinical research. Clin Res 40:655-660, 660, 1992
8. Bok S: Shading the truth in informed consent for clinical research. J Kennedy Inst Ethics 5:1-17, 1995
9. Pelligrino ED: Beneficence, scientific autonomy, and self-interest: Ethical dilemmas in clinical research. Cumb Q Health Ethics 1:361-369, 1992
10. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ: Clinical ethics. McGraw-Hill; New York, 1992 3rd edition, pp 146-149.
11. Schaffner KF: Ethical problems in clinical trials. J Med Philos 11:297-315, 1986
12. Markman M: The objective clinical scientist versus the advocate: A complex ethical and political dilemma facing cancer investigators and the public. Cancer Invest 13:324-326, 1995
13. Elks ML: Conflict of interest and the physician-researcher. J Lab Clin Med 126:19-23, 1995
14. Hammerschmidt DE: When commitments and interests conflict. J Lab Clin Med 126:5-6, 1995
15. Levine RJ: Clinical trials and physicians as double agents. Yale J Biol Med 65:-74, 1992
16. Katz J: Experimentation with human beings. Russell Sage Foundation. New York, 1972
17. Annas GJ: The changing landscape of human experimentation; Nuremberg, Helsinki, and beyond. J Law-Med 2:119-140, 1992
18. Katz J: Human experimentation and human rights. St. Louis Univ Law Jour 38:7-54, 1993
19. Engelhardt HT: The foundations of bioethics. 2nd edition; 330-335. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996
20. Jonas H: Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In Paul A. Freund, ed., Experimentation with human subjects. George Brazilier; New York, 1969
21. The President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Implementing human research regulations: The adequacy and uniformity of federal rules and their implementation. USGPO, publication number 040-000-00471-8, Washington, DC, 1983
22. Epstein LC, Lasagna L: Obtaining informed consent, form or substance. Arch Intern Med 123:682-688, 1969
23. Gray BH, Cooke RA, Tannenbaum AS: Research involving human subjects. The performance of institutional review boards is assessed in this empirical study. Science 201:1094-1101, 1978
24. Hammerschmidt DE, Keanse MA: Institutional review board review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 304:341-351, 1992
25. Edgar H, Rothman DJ: The institutional review board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. J Milb Q 73;489-506, 1995
26. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD: Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics 22:78-82, 1996
27. Daugherty CK: The impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: A Medical Oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol 17:, 1999 (in press)
28. Kent G: Shared understandings for informed consent: the relevance of psychological research on the provision of information. Soc Sci Med 43:1517-1524, 1996
29. Verheggen FWSM, van Wijmen FCB: Informed consent in clinical trials. Health Policy 36:131-153, 1996
30. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Thornton J, Hewison J: Informed consent for clinical trials: In search of the "bestquot; method. Soc Sci Med 47:1825-1840, 1998
31. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky R, Siegler M: Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1637-1643, 1993
32. Vanderpool HY. The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects. Facing the 21st Century. p 306: University Publishing Group, Frederick, Maryland, 1996
33. Von Hoff DD, Turner J: Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effect in phase I studies in antineoplastics. Invest New Drugs 9:415-422, 1991
34. Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE: Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. J Ann Oncol 2:175-781, 1990
35. Estey E, Hoth D, Wittes R, et al: Therapeutic responses in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 70:1105-1115, 1986
36. Smith TL, Lee JJ, Kantarjian HM, et al: Design and results of phase I cancer clinical trials: 3 year experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 14:287-295, 1996
37. Rodenhuis S, van den Heuvel WJ, Annyas AA, Koops HS, Sleijfer DT, Mulder NH: Patient motivation and informed consent in a phase I study of an anticancer agent, fur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1984; 20:457-462
38. Tomamichel M, Sessa C, Herzig S, de-Jong J, Pagani O, Willems Y, Cavalli F: Informed consent for phase I studies: Evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol 6:321-323, 1995
39. Willem Y, Sessa C: Informing patients about phase I trials-How should it be done? Aeta Oncol 1989; 28:106-107
40. Yoder LH, O'Rourke TJ, Ethyre A, Spears DT: Expectations and experiences of patients with cancer participating in phase I clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum 24:89196, 1997
41. Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Fuji H, Ohtsu T, Wakita H, Igarashi T, Abe K: Patients in phase I trials of anti-cancer agents in Japan: Motivation, comprehension and expectations. Br J Cancer 76:107-113, 1997
42. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R, Siegler M: Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 1062-1072
43. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, Banik DM, Vogelzang NJ, Stadler WM, Siegler M: Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 16:2305-2312, 1998
44. Seale C: Communication and awareness about death: A study of a random sample of dying people. Soc Sci Med 32:943-952, 1991
45. Hinton J: How reliable are relatives' retrospective reports of terminal illness? Patients' and Relatives' counts compared. Soc Sci Med 43:1229-1236, 1996
46. Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, Miller DJ, Stallings RY, Vettese MA, Haller KB: The accuracy of substituted judgements in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Int Med 128:621-629, 1998
47. Weeks JC, Cook EF, O'Day SJ, Peterson LM, Wenger N, Reding D, Harrell FE, Kussin P, Dawson NV, Conners AF, Lynn J, Phillips RS: Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA 279:1709-1714, 1998
48. Trill MD, Holland J: Cross-cultural differences in the care of patients with cancer. A review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 15:21-30, 1993
49. Marsoni S, Hoth D, Simon R, Leyland-Jones B, DeRosa M, Wittes RE. Clinical drug development: an analysis of phase II trials. Cancer Treat Rep 71:71-80, 1987
50. Storer B, DeMets D. Current phase I/II designs: are they adequate? J Clin Res Drug Dev 1:121, 1987
51. Rajagopal S, Goodman PJ, Tannock IF. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: discordance between physicians' perception of benefit and the results of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 12:1296, 1994
52. Belanger D, Moore M, Tannock I. How American oncologists treat breast cancer: an assessment of the influence of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9:7, 1991
53. Baar J, Tannock I. Analyzing the same data in two ways: a demonstration model to illustrate the reporting and misreporting of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 7:969-978, 1989
54. Freedman B. Cohort-specific consent: An honest approach to phase I cancer studies. IRE Rev Human Subjects Res 12:5-7, 1990
55. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, Banik DM, Vogelzang NJ, Stadler WM, Siegler M. Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 16:2305-2312, 1998
56. Piantadosi S, Liu G. Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat Med 15:1605-1618, 1996
57. Ensign LG, Gehan EA, Kamen DS, Thall PF. An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 13:1727-1736, 1994
58. Strauss N, Simon R. Investigating a sequence of randomized phase II trials to discover promising treatments. Stat Med 15:1479-1489, 1995